Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Philosophy: Are scriptures proof of God?

Bottom of Page

1 to 50 of 69

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2009
     
    Greetings.


    I was talking to a Born Again Christian once, and she basically argued that scriptures are proof of God's existence, or that scriptures aim to prove God's existence.

    Are they, do they?


    Thank you for your replies.
  2.  
    I think that any such 'proof' is in the eye of the beholder. Scriptures (and sadhus) aim to bring us closer to God, so that we can experience Him for ourselves, thus proving His existence in our individual case.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2009
     
    They describe various paths to the ultimate proof in the form of divya pratyaksa, direct experience of Krsna as Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan. But one can't say if that's true without taking those paths and reaching the goal. So back to the proof of the pudding...
  4.  
    māyā-mugdha jīvera nāhi svataḥ kṛṣṇa-jñāna
    jīvere kṛpāya kailā kṛṣṇa veda-purāṇa

    TRANSLATION

    "The conditioned soul cannot revive his Kṛṣṇa consciousness by his own effort. But out of causeless mercy, Lord Kṛṣṇa compiled the Vedic literature and its supplements, the Purāṇas.

    'śāstra-guru-ātma'-rūpe āpanāre jānāna
    'kṛṣṇa mora prabhu, trātā' — jīvera haya jñāna

    TRANSLATION

    "The forgetful conditioned soul is educated by Kṛṣṇa through the Vedic literatures, the realized spiritual master and the Supersoul. Through these, he can understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead as He is, and he can understand that Lord Kṛṣṇa is his eternal master and deliverer from the clutches of māyā. In this way one can acquire real knowledge of his conditioned life and can come to understand how to attain liberation.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2009 edited
     
    While pramana of scriptural evidence is often the only evidence accepted to the nature of God --what protestants claim: Sola scriptura -- is not a factual or logical statement, and in fact a false statement. All Christian scriptures were formed some 4 centuries after Christ. Thus at a point, from their own point of view, there was no scripture but was "Christian faith" -- this alone proves the Sola scriptura of Protestants is false. It formed in an opposition to the Catholic prima scriptura. Sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the scripture, The Catholic prima scriptura includes the general revelation by the way of creation, the tradition, mystical insight, angelic visitations etc., that are excluded if you subscribe to Sola scriptura concept. (new-borns are rudimentary protestants).

    All of it is quite opposite to the principle of guru-sadhu-sasra that we follow, under this principle there are may ways to arrive to understanding of the existence of God. But it is childish to argue about the "existence" of God. God gives free will to all residents of this world to never be convinced by logic, scripture or others' faith. It is our free will that is part of the solution rather than the problem. However by the mercy of a devotee bhagavata we are able to enter into the faithful hearing of the book Bhagavata and that is the beginning of the 'proof is in the taste of the podding". Bhagavata is the ultimate solution to all these rudimentary arguments. Why argue about existence, seek the love of Godhead.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2009
     
    > All Christian scriptures were formed some 4 centuries after Christ

    canonized
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    ccd:But it is childish to argue about the "existence" of God.
    I don't mean to be daft, I would just like to explore this line of reasoning:

    Why is it childish to argue about the existence of God?

    I would imagine that arguments about the existence of God only become pertinent if there is some conviction that God is or might be evil, or that we have to "get it right" in this one lifetime, or we will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption; or if there is some conviction that God is or might be good but powerless.

    Otherwise, if there is some conviction that God is magnanimous and always helping, that suffering pertains to the material, that we are not actually the material, that we can all elevate ourselves spiritually if we follow a particular process, and that we have infinite time to do that, then arguments about God's existence don't seem so pertinent anymore.

    Although there are also those who believe that suffering pertains to the material, that we are not actually the material, that we can all elevate ourselves spiritually if we follow a particular process, and that we have infinite time to do that, but that God plays no role in all this.

    God gives free will to all residents of this world to never be convinced by logic, scripture or others' faith.
    I am finding this really strange - that becoming convinced by logic, scripture or others' faith could be a matter of free will. What is the explanation that becoming convinced by logic, scripture or others' faith is a matter of free will? What is it about us that becoming convinced by logic, scripture or others' faith is a matter of free will?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    It's childish because arguments (anumana) are inconclusive (tarko 'pratisthah).

    > I am finding this really strange - that becoming convinced by logic, scripture or others' faith could be a matter of free will.

    What is your idea and its explanation?
    • CommentAuthordeena
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    A simpler approach...

    If the president says something and it is written down and I read about it, isn't that proof of the existence of the president?
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    deena:A simpler approach... If the president says something and it is written down and I read about it, isn't that proof of the existence of the president?
    Not for a modern day person born and bred in a society where it is a given to doubt the veracity and validity of any public figure or authority ... Who _really_ believes politicians? We often hear about how the speeches of many politicians and others are written by professional writers and not the politicians themselves, or how this or that politician or person in authority is a puppet in the hands of some other party or company or something suspicious.

    In other words, many of us generally expect that those in position of some authority will cheat us or use it against us; many of us have an inherent mistrust for anyone in position of authority.

    So when for the purpose of a theistic discussion, analogies from the worldly system of government are used, in some listeners, this can bring in those inherent issues of mistrust that get transferred onto God. I suppose this a sign of kali-yuga, when the world becomes so corrupt that it cannot even halway provide analogies without also bringing in negative connotations. I wonder if there is a way around that, and for a theistic discourse to use a language abstract and general enough to avoid such problems.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    Baker:
    ccd:But it is childish to argue about the "existence" of God.
    I don't mean to be daft, I would just like to explore this line of reasoning:

    Why is it childish to argue about the existence of God?
    You are not daft. You are intelligent. But if someone argues that God does not exist and you argue that He does it is chlidish, while there are arguments, the reliance on the argument is shallow.

    Free will is the basis of your 'choice' -- this choice is the result of love of God or hatred of God. It is your 'choice'. Logic is foundationless. You can be convinced by logic in your understanding, but not in your desire to practice bhakti. Desire has nothing to do with a logical explanation, it is on the level of vijnana, or realization.
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    VEDA:It's childish because arguments (anumana) are inconclusive (tarko 'pratisthah).
    > I am finding this really strange - that becoming convinced by logic, scripture or others' faith could be a matter of free will.
    What is your idea and its explanation?

    That becoming convinced should happen in some objective manner which we have no influence upon. For as soon as we have influence on our thought-processes, these processes and their results become invalidated because of our various biases, esp. cognitive and memory biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_bias).

    For a conviction to be valid, it has to be beyond biases.

    I think the above is a hopeless, paralyzing outlook, but at the same time, I see no way to overcome it or a better alternative to it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    > For a conviction to be valid, it has to be beyond biases.

    Exactly the point. Not only that -- the logic alone by its nature is deficient because it is axiomatic or limited. It is not about the objectivity, its about the limited nature of logic itself. While you can expect logical explanation as to the all-pervaiding nature of God, it is not sufficient to convince you as to the nature of your relationship with God, for this you need to have a personal interaction with a bhakta who has bhakti residing in the heart. Not everything is cold and rational, but everything can be explained in cold and rational terms.
    • CommentAuthordeena
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    Baker:
    deena:A simpler approach... If the president says something and it is written down and I read about it, isn't that proof of the existence of the president?
    Not for a modern day person born and bred in a society where it is a given to doubt the veracity and validity of any public figure or authority ... Who _really_ believes politicians? We often hear about how the speeches of many politicians and others are written by professional writers and not the politicians themselves, or how this or that politician or person in authority is a puppet in the hands of some other party or company or something suspicious.

    In other words, many of us generally expect that those in position of some authority will cheat us or use it against us; many of us have an inherent mistrust for anyone in position of authority.

    So when for the purpose of a theistic discussion, analogies from the worldly system of government are used, in some listeners, this can bring in those inherent issues of mistrust that get transferred onto God. I suppose this a sign of kali-yuga, when the world becomes so corrupt that it cannot even halway provide analogies without also bringing in negative connotations. I wonder if there is a way around that, and for a theistic discourse to use a language abstract and general enough to avoid such problems.
    The statement of the person is still proof of their existence, regardless of whether or not people are suspicious of them. Just like this statement written by me and read by you is proof of my existence. Is it not? Please say yes. I hate to find out I don't exist.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2009
     
    These biases are summarized in the four fallacies of a baddha jiva. All theistic traditions teach that such a jiva can't liberate himself on his own but needs an external help in the form of Bhagavan-person, Bhagavan-book and bhakta/guru who enables access to them, either directly or indirectly (thru ajnata sukriti). To accept this help one needs free will.
    Otoh, a passive waiting for enlightenment (to avoid one's fallacious involvement) doesn't work.
    You still didn't read the Suhotra Swami's book.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    VEDA: You still didn't read the Suhotra Swami's book.
    Do you have an online version?
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    VEDA:These biases are summarized in the four fallacies of a baddha jiva. All theistic traditions teach that such a jiva can't liberate himself on his own but needs an external help in the form of Bhagavan-person, Bhagavan-book and bhakta/guru who enables access to them, either directly or indirectly (thru ajnata sukriti). To accept this help one needs free will. Otoh, a passive waiting for enlightenment (to avoid one's fallacious involvement) doesn't work. You still didn't read the Suhotra Swami's book.
    I have read his summary essay "Doubt and Certainty In Krishna Consciousness" (I really liked it, by the way). I have his book "Substance and shadow" too. But I hesitate reading it, and perhaps you can help me with that, please.

    Namely, I feel very much uncomfortable and ashamed that I should have to study philosophy and meta-aspects of belief in God and spiritual practice like that. I have this conviction that I should be able to accept and understand the topics of Krishna consciousness without such study. You have probably seen the way Sri Govinda Das has criticized me here, that I am "too mental", "set in my ways" and so on. I have a very strong inner voice that tells me such things most of the time as well. Most of the devotees I have met are like that too.

    There is also the fact that I am in a female body. Many devotees have the conviction that females do not understand philosophy, or can, at most, understand it only in a very limited sense, and that they might as well stay away from philosophy altogether. I don't know how much I should accept this conviction and act on it if I am to associate with devotees and perhaps become one.

    Moreover, I am well aware that I am way out of your league. I am not young anymore, nor do I have many resources in terms of intelligence, time and money. And that therefore, I need to rethink whether it is worth it or reasonable for me to invest in pursuing associacion with people for which I will most likely not qualify. That instead, I should not "aim too high", and should just try to adapt to the devotees it is actually possible for me to associate with, even if they are not exactly to my liking.

    But I am finding myself unable to decide about these things.
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    ccd:
    VEDA: You still didn't read the Suhotra Swami's book.
    Do you have an online version?
    http://www.suhotraswami.net/library/Substance_and_Shadow.pdf
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    ccd:> For a conviction to be valid, it has to be beyond biases. Exactly the point.
    Allright, but what does one do and think in the meantime, until one reaches the state beyond bias?

    What "bridging attitudes" or "temporary morality/philosophy" should one employ?

    Or should one think "Okay, I'll just grit my teeth and move on until I reach the goal, ignoring all doubts, questions, and considerations that may occur to me in the meantime."

    Also, isn't free will a bias as well?
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009 edited
     
    Baker:
    ccd:> For a conviction to be valid, it has to be beyond biases. Exactly the point.
    Allright, but what does one do and think in the meantime, until one reaches the state beyond bias?

    What "bridging attitudes" or "temporary morality/philosophy" should one employ?
    The answer was given by Krishna in the verse tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya. In other words you need association of tattva-darsis. Not that it is easy to obtain, but this is what the answer is.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    > I feel very much uncomfortable and ashamed that I should have to study philosophy and meta-aspects of belief in God and spiritual practice like that.

    It was you who started with philosophy, in a sort of agnostic way. So I adapt to that attitude.

    > I have this conviction that I should be able to accept and understand the topics of Krishna consciousness without such study.

    Yes, that's in a sense easier. But so far you claimed you can't do bhakti. Therefore philosophy (jnana) is the previous step.

    > You have probably seen the way Sri Govinda Das has criticized me here, that I am "too mental", "set in my ways" and so on. I have a very strong inner voice that tells me such things most of the time as well. Most of the devotees I have met are like that too.

    You inner voice and most devotees tell you the same as Sri Govinda Das? Well, in that case it seems you should seriously consider it.

    > There is also the fact that I am in a female body. Many devotees have the conviction that females do not understand philosophy, or can, at most, understand it only in a very limited sense, and that they might as well stay away from philosophy altogether. I don't know how much I should accept this conviction and act on it if I am to associate with devotees and perhaps become one.

    Imho, this is not a major obstacle. If one is inquisitive, one should pursue knowledge and wisdom. Philosophy = "a love of wisdom".
    Their topmost expression is in bhakti.

    > Moreover, I am well aware that I am way out of your league. I am not young anymore, nor do I have many resources in terms of intelligence, time and money. And that therefore, I need to rethink whether it is worth it or reasonable for me to invest in pursuing associacion with people for which I will most likely not qualify. That instead, I should not "aim too high", and should just try to adapt to the devotees it is actually possible for me to associate with, even if they are not exactly to my liking.

    This sounds like excuses to me. As I said, bhakti yoga can be practiced by children and even animals and plants (passively - hearing, eating). You try to compare yourself with others from the pov of 'better/worse'. This is not needed. The main qualification is a desire to serve Krsna (sevonmukha).

    > Or should one think "Okay, I'll just grit my teeth and move on until I reach the goal, ignoring all doubts, questions, and considerations that may occur to me in the meantime."

    No, these things are automatically cleared on the bhakti path.

    > Also, isn't free will a bias as well?

    No, it's a main characteristic of every jiva.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    >> You have probably seen the way Sri Govinda Das has criticized me here, that I am "too mental", "set in my ways" and so on. I have a very strong inner voice that tells me such things most of the time as well. Most of the devotees I have met are like that too.
    >
    >You inner voice and most devotees tell you the same as Sri Govinda Das? Well, in that case it seems you should seriously consider it.

    It is perfectly FINE to be mental, provided you have a proper space where you can open your mind to devotees. Devotees often misused the term mental, on mental platform -- and ask others to 'just do it' -- mainly because they have no facility to deal with other peoples. It is not a norm, it is a mistake -- there should be a space where you can air your doubts, your questions and mental things. That is natural, but better done among devotee-friends,
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    VEDA: > You have probably seen the way Sri Govinda Das has criticized me here, that I am "too mental", "set in my ways" and so on. I have a very strong inner voice that tells me such things most of the time as well. Most of the devotees I have met are like that too.
    You inner voice and most devotees tell you the same as Sri Govinda Das? Well, in that case it seems you should seriously consider it.

    I said I have a very strong inner voice that tells me such things. I have several "inner voices". The loudest one is the one representing the majority of people I have known or met, and they think negatively of me.

    Ever since I can remember, most people have considered me stupid. Even though for highschool and college, I received a special state-sponsored grant for the above-average intelligent. Still, I often get treated as if I couldn't count to three. How does one reconcile that?
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    ccd: It is perfectly FINE to be mental, provided you have a proper space where you can open your mind to devotees. Devotees often misused the term mental, on mental platform -- and ask others to 'just do it' -- mainly because they have no facility to deal with other peoples. It is not a norm, it is a mistake -- there should be a space where you can air your doubts, your questions and mental things. That is natural, but better done among devotee-friends,
    The way things have been going for me, it looks like I am never going to have any devotee friends. So I am trying to find a way around that.

    But I think I get your hint - I should stop posting about "my stuff" here. I understand.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
     
    Baker:
    ccd: It is perfectly FINE to be mental, provided you have a proper space where you can open your mind to devotees. Devotees often misused the term mental, on mental platform -- and ask others to 'just do it' -- mainly because they have no facility to deal with other peoples. It is not a norm, it is a mistake -- there should be a space where you can air your doubts, your questions and mental things. That is natural, but better done among devotee-friends,
    The way things have been going for me, it looks like I am never going to have any devotee friends. So I am trying to find a way around that.

    But I think I get your hint - I should stop posting about "my stuff" here. I understand.
    Are you saying we are not your 'friends'? Is that what it is;-)
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2009
     
    > I said I have a very strong inner voice that tells me such things. I have several "inner voices". The loudest one is the one representing the majority of people I have known or met, and they think negatively of me.

    This is the mind molded by experience in this life.

    > Ever since I can remember, most people have considered me stupid. Even though for highschool and college, I received a special state-sponsored grant for the above-average intelligent. Still, I often get treated as if I couldn't count to three. How does one reconcile that?

    Easily. There're many such people. They have analytical approach to life. When someone falls into a well and the rope is thrown in to pull him out, most persons will catch the rope. The 'analysts' will start pondering and studying the rope. That may be the last thing in their life. From the pov of rescuers it's stupid.
    The story with cleaning puja items shows a way out. When one can do it (sevonmukha), Lord becomes satisfied and gives spiritual intelligence. Then things become clear and bhaktiyoga can start. So simple, yet so difficult...
  27.  
    Baker:
    "Ever since I can remember, most people have considered me stupid. Even though for highschool and college, I received a special state-sponsored grant for the above-average intelligent. Still, I often get treated as if I couldn't count to three. How does one reconcile that?"

    Baker, that's how normally people look at themselves through the eyes of other people. Result is when someone says, you are nice and intelligent one becomes happy and when someone says you are fool and idiot, one becomes unhappy.

    My suggestion is that please stop looking at yourself via others. Take a different route and look at yourself directly from your own eyes rather than looking at yourself from other people's eyes.
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2009
     
    VEDA:Easily. There're many such people. They have analytical approach to life. When someone falls into a well and the rope is thrown in to pull him out, most persons will catch the rope. The 'analysts' will start pondering and studying the rope. That may be the last thing in their life. From the pov of rescuers it's stupid.
    I think this is a caricature of those "analysts", seen merely from the perspective of "rescuers".

    I have, for a fact, been several times in situations where I was on the verge of death. For example like one time, when I was free diving and went too deep. As the water was pressing more and more and I had no air, I indeed started thinking. If there would be a chair there several meters below surface, I would probably have sat down. But what I was thinking about was whether it was worth it to try to swim up. Whether life is worth living.

    Some other time, I fell on my behind and stopped breathing. It was a surreal experience. I noticed I didn't breathe, wondered what to do, but most of all, whether it was worth it to do something.

    The fact that I contemplated like that, that was the most disturbing about those experiences, not the falls, injuries, or breathing in seawater.

    Normal people would seek to save themselves in such situations, they wouldn't think twice. But I did. I wondered whether it was worth it. "Studying the rope" came in much later, after I saw that I cannot answer the question whether life is worth living, without reference to some "rope", spiritual path.
    The story with cleaning puja items shows a way out. When one can do it (sevonmukha), Lord becomes satisfied and gives spiritual intelligence. Then things become clear and bhaktiyoga can start. So simple, yet so difficult...

    Oh, I can do that. But my problem is that there are almost always other people present in my mind somehow, in the form of voice or image. For example, even if I just think of a picture of Krishna, usually, some devotee criticizing me will be present in my mind as well. "You may not, you don't know. You did this wrong, you did that wrong. We don't like you. You will never be able, you will never understand. If you don't know by now, you will never know." This goes on to the point that my arms feel heavy and I become passive.
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2009
     
    dweller-in-peace: My suggestion is that please stop looking at yourself via others. Take a different route and look at yourself directly from your own eyes rather than looking at yourself from other people's eyes.
    I have been advised this several times before. I don't know what it means. What are "my own eyes"? How can I know what "my own eyes" as opposed to "other people's eyes"?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2009
     
    > I think this is a caricature of those "analysts", seen merely from the perspective of "rescuers".

    The 'rescuers' here represent the majority of folks. You wanted to know so I gave a metaphor that came to my mind. It was used by SP:


    Similarly, those who are in the dark well of this material world cannot conceive of the light outside, in the spiritual world. But that world is a fact. Suppose someone has fallen into a well and he cries out, “I have fallen into this well! Please save me!” Then a man outside drops down a rope and calls, “Just catch hold of this rope and I will pull you out!” But no, the fallen man has no faith in the man outside and does not catch hold of the rope. Similarly, we are telling everyone in the material world, “You are suffering. Just take up this Krsna consciousness and all your suffering will be relieved.” Unfortunately, people refuse to catch hold of the rope, or they do not even admit they are suffering.
    But one who is fortunate will catch hold of the rope of Krsna consciousness, and then the spiritual master will help him out of this dark world of suffering and bring him to the illuminated, happy world of Krsna consciousness.
    (Beyond Birth and Death, 2:Plato)

    > there are almost always other people present in my mind somehow, in the form of voice or image.

    These are the 'other eyes', to be disregarded if they try to stop you from serving Krsna. To become passive is of no help.
  31.  
    >"other people's eyes"?
    there are almost always other people present in my mind somehow, in the form of voice or image.

    >What are "my own eyes"?
    athato brahma jijnasa.

    The first aphorism in the Vedanta-sutra is athato brahma jijnasa. In the human form of life one should put many questions to himself and to his intelligence. In the various forms of life lower than human life the intelligence does not go beyond the range of life's primary necessities--namely eating, sleeping, mating and defending. Dogs, cats and tigers are always busy trying to find something to eat or a place to sleep, trying to defend and have sexual intercourse successfully. In the human form of life, however, one should be intelligent enough to ask what he is, why he has come into the world, what his duty is, who is the supreme controller, what is the difference between dull matter and the living entity, etc. There are so many questions, and the person who is actually intelligent should simply inquire about the supreme source of everything: athato brahma jijnasa.

    You are asking lot of questions about god, his existence. This is Brahma jijnasa. So you are on right track. If you are not satisfied with the answers you have received, there is no need to panic. There is no need to condemn yourself or to feel guilty if it is taking you time to find answers to all your questions.
    Thankful People: portnoy
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2009
     
    In a way the fact that there are so many scriptures and that they all talk about God, even in different cultures and in different parts of history, the fact that for the most part nobody even knows the author of Vedic scripures and that they continue to fascinate intelligent people over thecenturies and certainly over the last 150 years in the west as well -- it all can be taken as a proof of the existence of God.
    •  
      CommentAuthorportnoy
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2009 edited
     
    Jesus loves me
    This I know
    'Cause the Bible
    Tells me so

    Are scriptures proof of God? A mango is proof of God. Consciousness is proof of God. The color blue is proof of God. Grass and leaves are proof of God. I am proof of God. You are proof of God. The sky, the land, ... earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect, ego .... all the elements existing in matter are proof of God. The universe with all the stars and planets .. the sun and moon .... all creatures mobile and immobile, gigantic and tiny .. everything that exists .... PROOF OF GOD! That an atheist can declare that there is no God ... is proof of God ....
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2009
     
    ccd:In a way the fact that there are so many scriptures and that they all talk about God, even in different cultures and in different parts of history, the fact that for the most part nobody even knows the author of Vedic scripures and that they continue to fascinate intelligent people over thecenturies and certainly over the last 150 years in the west as well -- it all can be taken as a proof of the existence of God.
    We could also ask, coming from the scope of pratyaksa and anumana, "Why is it necessary to have proof of God (before we can continue on the path of our search?)" or "What are one's own reasons for seriously considering that God does not exist?" and "What are the criteria for something to be a "proof"?" Following such questions through to their assumptions and implications has got to bring one to the end of one's wits ... Which can sometimes be very useful ...
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2009
     
    dweller-in-peace: You are asking lot of questions about god, his existence. This is Brahma jijnasa. So you are on right track. If you are not satisfied with the answers you have received, there is no need to panic. There is no need to condemn yourself or to feel guilty if it is taking you time to find answers to all your questions.
    Thank you for your reply! It inspires me to review how to organize my studies of spiritual literature and my attitudes as a seeker.
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2009
     
    VEDA: > there are almost always other people present in my mind somehow, in the form of voice or image.
    These are the 'other eyes', to be disregarded if they try to stop you from serving Krsna. To become passive is of no help.
    How do I disregard them? They are devotees, after all, and I feel I am being rude if I disregard them. (Gritting my teeth and forcing my mind elsewhere works for some time, but not for long.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2009 edited
     
    > We could also ask, ...

    These are the topics of Substance and Shadow book.

    > They are devotees, after all, and I feel I am being rude if I disregard them.

    What is your other option? Stopping your service? No good.
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009
     
    VEDA:What is your other option? Stopping your service? No good.
    It seems the solution would be to somehow take myself out of the equation - no (wo)man, no problem, which is what I have been trying to do so far. It also seems this is what others want as well - that I would somehow become invisible.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009
     
    No, Krsna wants to see everyone of us. That's the meaning of darsana.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009
     
    Interesting desire to be "somehow become invisible." It is a mixture of humility and pride. The Box Man (箱男 Hako otoko) by Abe Kobo deals with it, but it is not a very good proposal. Act in such a way that you will be noticed by Krishna and your guru. But you can keep a low profile, that certainly the right attitude.

    It is not being rude, just keeping a distance (if you can) especially from those who are conditioned by a different set of cultural values.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009
     
    Baker:
    ccd:In a way the fact that there are so many scriptures and that they all talk about God, even in different cultures and in different parts of history, the fact that for the most part nobody even knows the author of Vedic scripures and that they continue to fascinate intelligent people over thecenturies and certainly over the last 150 years in the west as well -- it all can be taken as a proof of the existence of God.
    We could also ask, coming from the scope of pratyaksa and anumana, "Why is it necessary to have proof of God (before we can continue on the path of our search?)" or "What are one's own reasons for seriously considering that God does not exist?" and "What are the criteria for something to be a "proof"?"..
    Kierkegaard had something very smart to say about demanding a proof. Do you want a quote?
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009 edited
     
    ccd:Kierkegaard had something very smart to say about demanding a proof. Do you want a quote?

    Yes, please.
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009 edited
     
    ccd:Interesting desire to be &quot;somehow become invisible.&quot; It is a mixture of humility and pride.
    I think this desire is actually part of our culture here, so I'm not sure how personal it actually is. One of my earliest memories of it is as I witnessed the ritual of adults drinking coffee. The way they spoke of it, their non-verbal expressions related to it, it made me think coffee _is supposed_ to be drunk, in order to appease some merciless god of coffee and normalcy, regardless whether one likes coffee or not. That one has to eliminate oneself out of the equation as much as possible and do the things that 'need to be done'.

    In the same manner, I have experienced Christianity, meat eating, sex, alchol drinking, women wearing high heels, appreciating art and so on down the line.
    It is utterly bizarre to me, how people talk about their enjoyments and pleasures - that 'you have to do it, because this is the dictate of normalcy, and you have to be normal' combined with 'oh, it was so wonderful! it made me so happy';.
    Beckett and Kafka, for example, make a lot of sense to me that way. When I first saw an American mainstream musical, I thought I was watching a Beckettian play - to me, those musicals seem to be in the same genre as the absurdist plays. (Yes, I have had a lot of problems at school.)
    Act in such a way that you will be noticed by Krishna and your guru. But you can keep a low profile, that certainly the right attitude.
    I agree with keeping a low profile, it's what I have been wanting all along. But I don't know what exactly that is! Sometimes, it seems to me that part of keeping a low profile is to not engage in any kind of introspection, philosophy or discussion whatsoever, but to do one's duties, perfectly, modestly and silently, without any thinking.
    Hence one of my biggest problems with Vaishnavism and the devotees: they seem too colorful, too cheerful, too involved with philosophy, too fond of variety to still be considered 'keeping a low profile'. If one is keeping a low profile, then one cannot smile, can one? What color is the japa bag of someone who is keeping a low profile?
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009 edited
     
    Baker:
    ccd:Kierkegaard had something very smart to say about demanding a proof. Do you want a quote?

    Yes, please.
    here is one:

    "Anselm prays in all inwardness that he might succeed in proving God's existence. He thinks he has succeeded, and he flings himself down in adoration to thank God. Amazillg. He does not notice that this prayer and this expression of thanksgiving are infinitely more proof of God's existence than-the proof. (1953)

    and

    Kierkegaard’s rejection of any undertaking to find rational proof for the existence of God was due not only to the inability of reason ‘to understand what is absolutely different from itself’ but, above all, to the presumptuousness inherent in such an effort. For to prove the existence of one who is present is the most shameless affront. . . The existence of a king, or his presence, is commonly acknowledged by an appropriate expression of subjugation and submission—what if, in his sublime presence, one were to prove that he existed?”

    (from Prabhupada Appreciation quoted in Poor Man Reads the Bhagavatam (SB 1.8.33) - vol 4)
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    Baker:
    ccd:Interesting desire to be &quot;somehow become invisible.&quot; It is a mixture of humility and pride.
    I think this desire is actually part of our culture here, so I'm not sure how personal it actually is.
    Well maybe it is an effect of urbanization I don't really know. How do you propose for yourself to 'keep a low profile"? I will be interested to know what you actually prepared to undergo;-) I know for myself it is hard, but should not be something external only. In fact one can theoretically be bright and prominent but internally keep a low profile.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2009
     
    > Sometimes, it seems to me that part of keeping a low profile is to not engage in any kind of introspection, philosophy or discussion whatsoever, but to do one's duties, perfectly, modestly and silently, without any thinking.

    Vaisnava must be introspective, philosophical (at least to some extent), able to discuss. Thinking - in the 'philosophical speculation' style, i.e. within sastra limits.

    > Hence one of my biggest problems with Vaishnavism and the devotees: they seem too colorful, too cheerful, too involved with philosophy, too fond of variety to still be considered 'keeping a low profile'.

    I guess your idea is to be as inconspicuous as possible, like the proverbial 'grey mouse'. That's not a Vaisnava idea. Imho, it means that one doesn't attract attention to oneself, emphasizing one's qualities and achievements, and doesn't strive for positions and titles in order to be admired. But one is ready to do any service needed without considering if one gets recognized or not. And one shuns any formal appreciations, like Madhavendra Puri. The prime example from modern times would be Jayananda Prabhu.

    > If one is keeping a low profile, then one cannot smile, can one? What color is the japa bag of someone who is keeping a low profile?

    Why not? Any color. 8)
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2009
     
    ccd:How do you propose for yourself to 'keep a low profile"? I will be interested to know what you actually prepared to undergo;-)
    Thank you for asking.

    My 'keeping a low profile' is so far based mostly on the reflection that I am someone subject to birth, aging, illness and death, in all their forms; therefore, it is fitting that I don't try to deny that, thinking 'Oh, I can win over birth, aging, illness and death.'
    For example, I don't wear make-up, high heels or fancy clothes, because were I to stumble and fall, get robbed, be told some awful news and cry - it would look really silly to wear make-up etc. then. Few things are as ridiculous as a woman all dolled up who trips, or loses her job.

    For similar reasons, I make an effort to eat simple foods, the main criteria being that they be healthy and nutritious, even if not all that tasty. I use little salt, I don't fry, I eat little sugar. No pizza and no pasta.

    I always try to be in such a state of mind so as to be ready to hear some awful news and not become too disturbed.

    I'm not sure though how to transfer this attitude into my interactions with people. Mostly, it means that I limit my interactions to formal ones, or to situations where participation is highly voluntary (such as forums or open discussions) - as opposed to one to one personal situations where some obligations arise simply out of being physically present in the same space with someone.

    I know for myself it is hard, but should not be something external only. In fact one can theoretically be bright and prominent but internally keep a low profile.
    What do you do to 'keep a low profile', what reflections underlie your 'low profile' behavior?
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2009
     
    ccd:"Anselm prays in all inwardness that he might succeed in proving God's existence. He thinks he has succeeded, and he flings himself down in adoration to thank God. Amazillg. He does not notice that this prayer and this expression of thanksgiving are infinitely more proof of God's existence than-the proof. (1953)
    Sure - but while Anselm was searching for his proof of God, his consciousness was changed due to that very search, was it not? Was this change not the crucial part of the proof - even if it is not formally included in it?

    Yet this was _Anselm's_ proof of God, _he_ put effort into it. We can nowadays read his proof, and not be convinced - words alone don't prove anything. Had we, however, put a lot of effort into 'finding a proof of God', we too might end up with a proof and become convinced.
    Kierkegaard’s rejection of any undertaking to find rational proof for the existence of God was due not only to the inability of reason ‘to understand what is absolutely different from itself’ but, above all, to the presumptuousness inherent in such an effort. For to prove the existence of one who is present is the most shameless affront. . . The existence of a king, or his presence, is commonly acknowledged by an appropriate expression of subjugation and submission—what if, in his sublime presence, one were to prove that he existed?”

    (from Prabhupada Appreciation quoted in Poor Man Reads the Bhagavatam (SB 1.8.33) - vol 4)
    But the point in seeking proof of God is that one does not actually know God is present. The run-of-the-mill person does not have spiritual vision; she is firmly entangled in attachment to the senses and to the dualism of subjectivity and objectivity. She cannot overcome those attachments simply by telling herself so and thinking herself stupid and inept. But the fideists seem to propose just that: that blind faith, that fear and panic can make better decisions than reason. However, take away the threat of eternal damnation, and blind faith loses its appeal.

    There is also a difference between _demanding_ proof and _making an effort to find_ proof.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2009
     
    > There is also a difference between _demanding_ proof and _making an effort to find_ proof.

    That is a good point.
    • CommentAuthorBaker
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
     
    VEDA:I guess your idea is to be as inconspicuous as possible, like the proverbial 'grey mouse'. That's not a Vaisnava idea. Imho, it means that one doesn't attract attention to oneself, emphasizing one's qualities and achievements, and doesn't strive for positions and titles in order to be admired. But one is ready to do any service needed without considering if one gets recognized or not. And one shuns any formal appreciations, like Madhavendra Puri. The prime example from modern times would be Jayananda Prabhu.
    It's true, I do have a desire to be as inconspicuous as possible. But I seem to attract attention - and I don't want that. Often, I don't know who to behave so as to not attract attention.

    For example, asking questions and engaging in discussion usually draws attention to oneself. So in order not to draw attention to myself, should I refrain from asking questions and discussing?

    Or one's external appearance and behavior. Once, a devotee criticized me in front of everyone over the way I sit during kirtan. Namely, I sit upright, not leaning back, legs together, hands in dhyana mudra or otherwise placed in the front (but never crossed on the chest). (We all sit in chairs there.) He said that kirtan is not meant to meditate upon the Lord, at which point he mockingly mimicked my sitting posture. He has been a devotee for fifteen years and I am sure he knows the Siksastaka says there are no hard and fast rules for singing the names of the Lord. He also did not sound like he would take any counterargument from me. The other devotees didn't say anything, but merely smiled. I suppose they agreed with him. Nobody there sits the way I do.

    What should I have done or said, how should I sit. I sang in the school choir for eight years and I have done some Buddhist concentration meditation, so I know from experience what posture of the body is the most conducive to singing and concentrating as optimally as I can. If I lean backward or forward, cross my arms or legs (if sitting in a chair or standing), my voice and concentration suffer (and it's not like they are good to begin with).
    So merely the way I sit draws attention to me. But if I sat the way others usually do, I'd get sleepy and sang wrongly. What am I to do.

1 to 50 of 69

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
 
Powered By ISKCON Tech